Talk:Compost/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this thing is not NPOV. sorry. not at all. its full of suggestions.

also how to work in actinomycetes

---

OK, I worked them in, because I like talking about them in my compost workshops, too. Happy now?

I've been meaning to come back and take another stab at this article, so your comments prompted me to. Best first draft I could manage with a headache & it being bedtime. Still lots more to say about active vs passive & ingredients & commercial vs home and... well... there are entire books written on this topic. ;-) On the right track? Elf | Talk 06:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

All this technical mojo about layering and fibre is all very good, but in my garden I just sling the weeds & kitchen waste on it, wait 6-12 months and what comes out is superb. :-) -- Tarquin

same here :-) - though I've written a fairly deatiled article about compost with which I was thinking of replacing the current page with- would the original writer be offended?? Not the 1911 writer BTW quercus robur

It's best to try and merge old & new stuff together. I think this article suffers from the "scientific" approach and the "practical" approach not blending well. I suggest a short, 1 para opening, then headings for the practicalconsiderations & the scientific analysis. Or, if you like, just add your text as a new section & I'll come along and merge / separate / etc later -- Tarquin 15:06 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

---

removed POV line about compost activators; "Most of them (in the writer's opinion) are unnecessary." we could probably start a compost flame war over this, but to some extent i agree with this statement, however there are many who swear by compost activators, eg, the biodynamic crowd, also many activators (esp nitrogen rich) are indisputably beneficial, eg, urine, comfrey, lawn mowings, etc quercus robur

Nettles are good. The first spring in my current house, the garden sprouted a fine crop of nettles all over. I spent a day going round with gloves pulling them all up, and after a week the compost heap had dropped by about 30-50 cm. -- Tarquin

Hard to say how old this discussion is without digging through the history, but I think the essential point with the activators is speed. If you have time, almost anything is good enough, but to be efficient, the nitrogen rich activators really help. I am lazy and slow myself. My worms work harder than I do. WormRunner | Talk 06:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Great page, as is humus! Seems like the two should be merged, since "compost" and "humus" are synonymous, with composting as a separate topic from compost/humus? I guess it's tricky, though: compost is usually used as a noun, but it's a verb as well... Tsavage 21:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at that, too, and thinking about "compost" vs "composting" last night. Probably something could be done. Elf | Talk 22:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Humus is also in natural situations and to merge it into compost would be confusing and unnecessary. WormRunner | Talk 22:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree; From a soil scientist point of view, compost and humus are totally 2 different things ! FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I probably agree with the disagreement with my suggestion, as far as everyday usage - occurring naturally vs man-made - but I'm not sure if that's a "correct" usage. I'm curious! The way the articles are right now, it's confusing. What is the distinction from the soil scientist POV? If "compost" means "artificially-produced humus", then, in the Compost/Composting article, it should say: "Composting is the production of humus. Humus produced by composting, rather than in the wild, is also known as 'compost'." And if composting is harnessing the natural process of humification, then that confuses things a little more. Seems like mainly a semantic issue with the current versions of Compost and Humus that makes things a little unclear... :) Tsavage 15:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A soil science definition of humus is the extremely stable organic fraction of the soil. It is not a nutrient source per se, but can hold nutrients in a more available form and has major effects on soil structure. The bonding in humus is extremely complex. Compost is a product of partial decomposition of organic materials and is a source of nutrients as well as beneficially affecting soil structure. It is the result of a purposeful decomposition process called composting. Humification goes on, but only a small fraction of compost could be said to be humus by that definition. WormRunner | Talk 01:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WormRunner: Yeah, that's what I generally thought, too. It was when I read the two articles, Compost and Humus, that I got confused. In Humus, it differentitates been active and stable humus, and says: "Humus which is readily capable of further decomposition is referred to as effective or active humus. It is principally derived from sugars, starches and proteins and consists of simple organic (fulvic) acids. It is an excellent source of plant nutrients, but of little value regarding long term soil structure and tilth."

And now I'm not clear on another thing: I thought that fully composted...compost resulted in humus, it just depended on time and care in composting. Is there some limitation to (normal) composting methods that doesn't allow the creation of true stable humus? Tsavage 16:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Humus is essential to soil structure. It is not only about nutrients. If it is written that humus is of no value with regards to soil structure, there is a strong problem with the article :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did some online reading, and it seems clear that compost and humus are in fact used synonymously, as far as the final product is concerned. But compost refers to man-made humus, kinda like pearls vs cultured pearls...

The best reference is Sir Albert Howard's 1943 organic farming classic, An Agricultural Testament. Howard created and popularized modern composting with his Indore method, so he's pretty much the authority. In the book, he says: "The Indore Process for the manufacture of humus from vegetable and animal wastes was devised at the Institute of Plant Industry, Indore, Central India, between the years 1924 and 1931."[1].

In the current Compost article, the separate definitions for compost and composting are already there - it's correct but not clear. I think things could be easily fixed like this:

Rename this to Composting, redirect Compost to it, and update the definition of compost as humus (active or stable) that is artificially produced, by the process of composting.

Redirect Humification, which doesn't exist, to Humus, at least, for now...

I suppose I could just make the changes, rather than write about 'em, but... :-) Tsavage 20:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would say that both terms are used in a loose fashion by many people. I found an interesting site with several perspectives on the issue:

What is the real difference between Compost and Humus?

I don't have the time to do any real editing right now. Maybe later. WormRunner | Talk 21:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That was an interesting read: science vs the way things that are need a name. It will also be interesting to see how Wikipedia works it out. :) Compost vs humus is not something I'd thought a lot about, but I'll it a try in a bit if no-one else has! Tsavage 22:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] rock dust

Sorry state of the world seems reflected on this page since an addition I made last week has been removed (without a trace) although it concerns absolutely vital (trace mineral and seriously long term cycle related) compost ingredients. To wit, I added a link to David Yarrow's topsoil page with a good overview of 'rock dust' properties (understanding thereof and subsequent conscious use). I consider this (deletion) all the more offensive since rock dust is nowhere else to be found on wikipedia (anymore) and so I'd like the deleter to explain hirself asap. piet 12:49 GMT

Wonderful, deleted again and again without comment; will this righteous asshole come 'splain hisssself? I propose the following change (please discuss); IS: Finely pulverised rock dust can also provide needed minerals, but watch out for rock dust that consists mostly of clay. ---- BETTER: Finely pulverised rock dusts can also provide needed minerals, but watch out for (leached and or trace-poor) rock dusts that consists mostly of clay.

Response:

1. In most cases, external links belong in the External links section.
2. The link to championtrees seems to be a promotional site for various commercial brands, complete with brand photos etc. It's hard to separate that from what might be legit, independent research.
3. It's not clear from browsing some of the related links that this really has anything to do with compost--it might be a separate soil additive, but that doesn't meant that it goes in the compost article anyway.
4. Regarding proposed phrasing, "but watch out for" isn't particularly encyclopedic. Elf | Talk 20:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks for responding, that phrase isn't mine and I don't like it either, but, since I was already making major inroads -- by the way, if you study the history of rock dust use a bit you may be suprised how un- perhaps even anti-commercial ((in the sense that statemonies once were)) most of it has been and will most likely remain (since such long term cycles are involved the 'fast' boys lose interest if their head hasn't been trained to see them -- I prefered to let sleeping dogs lie where possible. Did just change the lines into: Finely pulverized rock (Rock_dust - Rock_flour) can also provide needed minerals, as opposed to clay (which is trace mineral poor and/or leached rock dust).

I entered John Hamaker into Wikipedia indirectly last november by way of google links for stonemeal and micromineral but they were deleted since). Now, you might say, Hamaker built an outlandish theory to try and sell his rock-grinder designs but I got to know him as a genuine person.

[edit] Composting is harmful and isn't recommended in back yards

Sorry, I'm not fond of people dismissing edits with "what a bunch of hooey," but the latest round of edits certainly is. There are *some* things that can occur in *some* compost that can affect *some* people, but it is truly a lie that backyard composting isn't recommended and that it's too dangerous for the average human to undertake. This flies in the face of centuries of backyard composting, decades of current research, worldwide use, and the general state of knowledge in the composting world. I'd want to see a tremendous amount of research literature refuting all that's gone before it. Meanwhile, yes, this article doesn't currently address some of the things that can grow in compost piles (and even in your garden without a compost pile--so look out--) and how they can affect some people. But this set of edits isn't it. Elf | Talk 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)